The Raw and the cooked: pulling apart Sony's Raw compression

Raw compression won't be apparent in every image, but there are circumstances in which it risks undermining what should be a great image. Photo by Rishi Sanyal

Update: September 15, 2015: Sony has announced that the a7S II will have the option to shoot uncompressed Raw, with firmware being rolled out for some existing models, including the a7R II used here, later.

A Raw file is a Raw file, right? Well, not exactly. Lately, there's been a lot of talk (and a lot of anger) about the compression Sony uses in its Raw files. Compressed Raw files aren't uncommon, but they're usually compressed in a way that retains all the original 'raw' data from the sensor. Or, at least, all the information that's visually meaningful.

Instead Sony has, for several years now, chosen to apply non-optional lossy compression to its Raw output. This isn't likely to be an issue for many users, since the impact is generally quite small, but as the company shows its ambitions in the high end market, with the launch of the a7 series and a dedicated support system for professionals, the impact on image quality deserves a little scrutiny.

What exactly is going on with Sony's Raw files, and what might the potential impact be? The compression system has been investigated and detailed by Iliah Borg and Alex Tutubalin, and we've tried to distill their findings. It's important to keep this in perspective, though: in many circumstances you won't see this impact or encounter the limitations it can impose.

What's happening?

Sony's compression process has two parts, and each of the two aspects have a different impact on the Raw files. The first step applies a compression curve to the data. This is a bit like a tone curve and is used to map the 14 bits of captured data down to an 11-bit space.

Although this part of the process is lossy, a well-designed compression curve has little to no impact on image quality. This is because although shot noise makes up a decreasing proportion of the captured data in bright regions, the actual magnitude of the noise increases. This means it doesn't make sense to retain all the information about bright regions of the images, since a lot of that information will just be recording the subtleties of the noise.

Ideally, then, you can get away with a lot of compression in bright tones so long as you preserve increasing amounts of information at the dark end of the file. Unlike the (optional) compression curve Nikon uses, Sony's doesn't fully exploit this phenomenon, meaning that some useful data is lost, as well as some of the noise. This will, theoretically, reduce the dynamic range available in the files.

Stage two

Sony's Raw compression then has a second stage, where the image is divided up into a series of 16 pixel stripes for each color channel. Rather than recording a separate value for each of these pixels, the Sony system records the brightest and darkest value in each stripe, and a series of simple notes about how all the other pixels vary from those extremes. These notes are recorded using fewer bits than it would take to record the actual pixel values and it's this step that appears to cause most of the problems.

When there's not much difference between the brightest and darkest pixel, the system is able to describe the scene pretty well. However, as soon as you have a big gap between bright and dark, the 7-bit values used to note the differences aren't sufficient to precisely describe the original image information.

The localized, second step of the compression means detail around high-contrast edges isn't correctly recorded and this inaccuracy becomes increasingly apparent if you try to adjust those regions of an image.

This image was created from a Raw file that had been underexposed, to retain highlight detail, then pushed 5EV when it was processed. This may seem extreme but it can be useful to be able to selectively brighten areas of an image, without the risk of revealing lost data.

This imprecise recording of the original image data leads to artifacts in stripes around high-contrast edges in the photos. These errors can become even more pronounced if you increase the brightness or contrast in those regions when processing the files.

14-bit and 12-bit readout

To compound matters, several Sony cameras we've tested appear to switch their sensor read-out from 14 bits to 12 bits in certain modes: further reducing the amount of dynamic range that the camera ever captures, even before the effects of the compression process are brought into play. Continuous shooting, Bracketing and Bulb exposure modes will all push most Sonys down to 12-bit capture mode, which is then subjected to the two stage compression.

Conclusion

These approaches probably made sense in consumer-grade cameras, back in the days where processing power and storage space came at a significant premium. However, on a camera as expensive as the a7R II, which is likely to be used for quality critical shooting, it's hard to justify clumsy compression that can, depending on the image, throw away data you were expecting to have access to.

Overall, the effects of this compression aren't often visually significant. Their impact should mostly be understood as a reduction in processing latitude, since it tends only to be when you push and pull the Raw files that the missing data becomes visible. The compression curve throws away more shadow data than would be ideal: reducing dynamic range. There's a further reduction if you shoot in a mode that drops the camera into 12-bit readout mode. Meanwhile, the localized compression of tonal differences only has an impact near high-contrast edges.

And it's not just heavily-pushed images that start to reveal the lost data: this is a straight out-of-camera JPEG file (shot with DRO Auto), still showing stripes extending from a high-contrast edge. It looks still worse in a gently processed Raw conversion.

It's worth noting, though, that the impact of this process is lessened in the company's higher pixel-count bodies, since a 32-pixel stripe will be a smaller proportion of the a7R II's 40MP images than it would in a 12MP image from the a7S.

It's quite possible to shoot for years and never notice the impact of these design choices Sony has made, but they do add up to mean that you can't access the full capability of the camera. Most people shoot Raw precisely because they want to preserve the maximum possible processing latitude and keep their creative options open. Raw compression isn't the end of the world by any means, but it throws away a little bit of a camera's capability, which might be a little hard to swallow if you've paid multiple thousands of dollars for a cutting-edge camera.

This article is based on the investigative work of Alex Tutubalin and Iliah Borg, creators of LibRaw and Raw Digger.

Comments

Digital imaging has gotten so good...it's hard to understand why people complain so much. Instead of appreciating the images that a camera like this can produce, people just want to blow the shots up and argue over a couple of pixels. Total insanity.

Sony has done a lot of things the right way in terms of the A7RII. They have some good lenses now as well. But if you're running a 100-meters-race and about to finish first, you don't give waves to your family before crossing the line.

Yes, lossy compression to me is the one and only reason not to switch from Canon to Sony. Shooting RAW for about 11 years now, I've learnt that with better RAW processing Software you'll get better pictures than you did then. To me, a RAW file is not about fire and forget, it's an investment which can easily grow as the years go by... as long as the RAW-File hasn't been spoilt by design. After all, it's a >3.000 USD-camera, for heavens sake!

Come on, Sony... give us the choice to use lossless compression or uncompressed RAW - even if the burst rate drops to 2 fps, I would be fine with that! Bring that firmware update and you can prepare an A7RII, SEL28F20 and SEL1635Z for shipping... and a 2.8/24-70 as soon as you're releasing a good one.

I don't think the raws are the only thing that stop me switching, i need a more compelling use case than a nice evf and slightly smaller size than a dslr (slightly as using same lenses). Battery considerations and frankly Sony's less than top notch support to professional are also dealbreakers. I think another generation or two and they should be on top of these, unless they are only interested in consumer markets and thrilling gadget enthusiasts.

Meanwhile mention of spite as a response to a well described comment is so out of context and pathetic that the user makes my ignore list immediately.

@RichjV, I don't know about what would be compelling for you, but I'll give you mine. Eye autofocus: This feature nails focus on an eye, with exposure based on the face in any scene where there is an eye. No putting the sensor on an eye and recomposing, no moving the focus point around to get it to an eye. Just compose your shot. If there is an eye in the shot and you push the button you have assigned eye-autofocus to, it will be found and nailed automagically. On to next angle, next shot. My D800 and D810 couldn't do this. In fact the D810's autofocus was one of the worst I've ever used.

Ignoring that "spite" nonsense. Of course canon is somewhat behind. But I'm dealing with a devil I know very well. looking on a histogram on-site gives me a very good idea if I need to take another shot, use GND Filters etc. If I'm going home with a Bad shot, it's my bad.

Now imagine a shot with compression artifacts you cannot avoid, no matter how good you've done your job. And the first time you'll see it is in your Raw Workflow. Thanks, but no thanks, don't mes with my files.

At the end of the day, all I'm saying is, I can wait until Sony is fixing this before hitting the buy button. If it's taking them too long, MAYBE Canon might catch up. Everybody defines his very own dealbreakers, allow me this one.

@Thematic: Those tests you mentioned are a kinda old story. Yea we know Canon still lacks the dynamic range in ISO 100. Instead you get better high ISO shots with finer grain, the images are still quite useable up to ISO 12800 which you can't say for other cameras.

Besides you can use MagicLantern's Dual-ISO which makes Sonikons dynamic range advantage fade.

I'd really like to know why are they doing it in the first place. It certainly isn't for file sizes and even if it was, why not just make it optional? Nikons with the same sensors as previous Sonys have always had what, 8 different ways to store a RAW? From a 12-bit lossy to a 14-bit uncompressed. One would expect Sony to have at least as much experience in the image processing department, as well as common sense.

I'm not really in a market for an ubercamera with a crazy resolution but I hate it when companies do these stupid decisions and not leaving anything to the consumer.

Keep hearing people say things like 'expose correctly' and 'this never happened to me and I would know' etc etc. Do you really know what you are talking about?? I often shoot interiors where there is huge contrast and I'm not allowed to set up lights, this is a perfect example of when you will purposely under expose because you want the highlight detail knowing you will bring it all back to where it should be in post later. Only you then notice these nasty artifacts and start to ask questions to yourself like 'how large is this image going to be reproduced?' 'Will it show up in the final print?'There is a very interesting TED talk by a journalist exposing how the large corporations now have employed bloggers and forum posters filling the online communities with counter arguments in cases like this masquerading as the unpaid public voicing an opinion. Has really made me think about some of the posts being put up hear!!Great article, deals with facts not opinions or feelings!

Little evidence here of any astroturfing. In fact, the technical thoughts are beyond the ken no doubt of social media copy writers -- and address important points, whatever the real answers may turn out to be.

In any case, if the reason for the algorithm is to raise burst capacity, then it's likely an easy answer would be to turn it on only for burst mode. I'm still interested in the suggestion that real problem is an error in the decompression side, and the view that if it worked as expected, it might actually improve imaging.

I keep looking at the beautiful night imaging _inside_ the Space Needle restaurants, apart from that moon, with all their gentle shadowing (microcontrast) and detail of the persons inside.

But, I do appreciate your difficulties that you explain, Cristo. The problem aspect definitely needs a fix.

I am quizzically inclined about whether there's much sock puppet marketer activity in the rest of DPReview comments. They'd have to be sophisticated indeed to be priming the usual politics, though that's not impossible. But the sheer volume of some kinds of less useful and self-interested messaging, even if led by cheerleaders, seems to mitigate against it being unreal.

I'm really hopeful that the freshness and variety of viewpoint in the new DPReview crew is going to help raise the level of postings and sentiments now. In fact, it already does...

Will let you know as I've just switched back to Capture One after not using it for about five years....this version 8 is really really good, especially if you do a lot of grading of your images.I to hope the decompression is the problem and can be fixed, either way I come across these artifacts a lot when doing heavy adjustments and unlike noise you can not remove them without an actual retouch.

No surprise that some artifacts appeared after such extreme PP. But a photographer does not need to push 5 stops, unless he has committed an extremely gross exposure error.

The article seems to ignore that the compression used by Sony is very effective in reducing the size of files. For example, the RAW files shown in DPR Studio Shot Comparison for ISO 200 have the following sizes:Sony 7RII: 41.4MBNikon D810A: 74.3MB

It is clear that the Sony 7RII stores RAW images at higher efficiency than the Nikon D810A, for example.

Any compression algorithm incurs a tradeoff between efficiency and appearance of artifacts. If you look closely enough, you will always find artifacts.

Who is to say how much a photographer may want to under expose to preserve highlights in a contrasty scene? Besides which you expect to see noise in the image when it is pushed not these types of artifacts. I have seen nasty artifacts in my images without pushing to those extremes many times.

You won't find the sort of artefacts that you find with this Sony in other cameras because other cameras don't use this kind of compression.

And a little bit of due diligence would have shown you that the D810a example of yours was comparing an uncompressed raw file. The lossless compression offered by Nikon reduces that to 40.7 MB. I'd call that very effective too. And if you go to lossy compression with the Nikon you get down to 36.3 MB. Corrected for MP count, the Sony raw file is just 2.2% smaller.

To achieve this 2.2% size reduction, you get high-contrast edge artefacts and a bit of deep shadow posterisation. If you think those 2.2% size reduction are worth it for you, fine. But demanding an option to waive those 2.2% file size reduction to get rid of the artefacts is something most people could probably get behind.

There's really no need for Sony to attempt to stage-manage this issue (Sony-engineered forum posts etc). It's clearly a consumer transparity matter, and would be a very positive brand building exercise for Sony to change their tack on this whole RAW compression convolution. It appears that a firmware update to sort this would be in every good interest of the manufacturer - to 'hand the keys of the car' over to the photographers and artists who are the best possible exponents of the brand-reach Sony are trying to establish in a very fickle and tech-aware market. This issue is deserving of the above article and an interesting example of corporate misjudgement of today's pros & prosumers.

I believe you have only used compressed NEF, whose size may indeed be smaller than 40 MB. However, the NEF file from the link I cited above, is lossless (non compressed) NEF as rrccad noted, and its size exceeds 70 MB.

To all the commenters on the "efficiency" of compressed/uncompressed, lossless/lossy RAW output: Three and a half years ago the wailing and whining on the enormous (appr 42 MB) RAW files coming out of the 800/E was positively deafening. I don't hear those complainers anymore. Maybe I've gone deaf.

We all got used to do that file size, upgraded our hardware and pp software (notice how much faster LR6 is compared to 4 and 5?), and got to work with those files.

The compression route Sony has chosen has nothing to do with efficiency. One wonders what made Sony decide not to go the lossless compressed route. Such an innovative company.

If size is a concern, shoot jpeg. I want my RAW, and until Sony delivers, for some of us they are not an option. Who cares about some minor space savings, if you use a $3000 camera, you can afford both bigger disks, SSDs and good-sized memory cards.

The main problem here is that Sony is demonstrating an inability to understand the pro market, which is an issue.

@FrankLossless is not the same has 'non compressed'. 'Non compressed' is non compressed and 'lossless' is a lossless compression (like a zip file). Nikon offers three option: uncompressed, lossless compressed, and 'visually lossless' compressed.

But you can not argue Sony stores with a better efficiency and then compare lossy vs uncompressed RAW. You really should follow the link in the article where the Nikon lossy compression is explained.It's hard to compare because of the different resolutions, but Nikon seems to be more (or at least same) efficient.

And even if Sony RAWs would be smaller this is no single criteria for efficiency when quality lacks.

I shoot a lot of high-iso long exposure photos at night. This problem has driven me bonkers for a couple of years before I finally found out about Sony crippling their raw files. If I had the money, I'd now be using a Nikon D750. But, I don't. You have my money, Sony, and all I have is your purposely flawed cameras. I thought that I was doing something wrong. It never occurred to me that a RAW file would be purposely damaged. Then I saw this http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection

FuhTeng, I'm in the middle of a hard drive problem. And, no, it's not a convenient problem so don't get on me for it. The raw file problem is real and widespread and well documented. The hard drive problem, you ask? (or not). Mac Yosemite. Somewhere in the recent updates, I have lost the ability to access the one NTFS external drive I have. Also widely acknowledged and documented. Until recently, I had a netbook (since donated when no longer needed) for a specific job and I used this hard drive for both mac and pc. Really kinda grumpy right now. I also have the A6000. Sony makes great sensors, but */#@ raw files when you stress them. They would be great if Sony didn't throw away much needed data.

As a 99% JPG shooter (mostly just for fun photography), the issue does not affect me but I support the need to include that option in the camera with the clear understanding of the performance penalties if any. Let the user decide.

I guess it is time for Sony or others to look into tiered pricing on their cameras. For example for this model - set a baseline price of around $1K with basic features and then for any added features, download and pay for activation. With my current SONY cameras and fondness for using manual settings about 80% of the time, I am probably just using 10-20% of the features; thus, I should be asking Sony for a refund on unused features :-). Just thinking out loud near lunchtime.

Nice article - and long overdue. With references like Iliah Borg, you certainly did your homework.

As for Ednaz mentioning Jay Maisel not shooting raw. Nonsense. Jay has been shooting digital since AT LEAST 1999. In fact, in Popular Photography's December 1999 issue there is a fine article, "Digital Comes of Age", where my digital work is shown side-by-side with Jay's work. What an honor! Jay is truly one of America's great photographers. I am not!

You can't replace information that has been lost.This solution is simply further "cooking" the RAW files.I know on CSI they take 1MP images zoom in 1000% to read a tattoo on the ankle of a someone a mile away, but in real life you can't replace information that is not there.

"I know on CSI they take 1MP images zoom in 1000% to read a tattoo on the ankle of a someone a mile away, but in real life you can't replace information that is not there"

No, but you can do a convincing job. Hell these cameras are filtering out all but three colors, and writing impressively good files with upwards of 16 million colors. While it exactly he same thing, it goes to show what can be created from a minute subset of data and a little math.

Of course you can't replace information that has been lost, but one can certainly make better proof of the information that is there.

Check out this analysis of Nikon's lossy compression vs. their lossless compression. While the differences are detectable at a pixel level through software, they do not to visually affect the image at all. This is lossy compression done right. Of course, I still shoot lossless. ;-)

I do astrophotography and I have A7s and Nikon D810AA7s is no water "protected" (for astronomy, outside with humidity, not good), A7s has compressed RAW issue, 12 bits or 13 bits depending of the shooting mode, A7s has "star eater" problem in BULB mode ! A7s has small battery capacity... A7s is a toy, but a very sensitive toy.

D810A is more professional camera.

I like both camera but Mr Sony, do a real firmware with real RAW and no old hot pixel suppression algorithm !

Lol. They've been making better cameras and lenses than both for some time. There's no hype. If you think C&N are 'the big boys' that Sony can't match or best you don't know much about the history of photography.

I've seen lots of brands come and go. Nikon has been a constant for professional use but more pros used Pentax and Rollei than Canon in the 70s when I started taking pictures. Even press 'togs used Rollei TLRs as they're good in confined spaces and have a big neg for enlarging. No weddings were shot on 35mm.

Canon built their name in the 80s with the A1 and their fast tele line. They got an early lead in the digital market but they are now in real danger of falling behind. My cousin recently bought a Canon DSLR and it was the worst value she could have got for her money, but the brand is so strongly established that she didn't look elsewhere. That is what Canon is relying most heavily on now - brand awareness, not innovative products. They are a more hyped brand than Sony.

Waiting for a firmware update from Sony?! The A7R-III will probably come out before that happens. Yes, there should be an option for uncompressed raw, but the issue isn't a show-stopper for me. I haven't noticed any glaring artifacts on my photos yet, and omg do I pixel peep. Maybe it's because I expose correctly and bracket.

A Sony rep made a comment on this very issue but the statements seemed vague and evasive. That said, it really sounded as though they would look into this, in future products rather than to address in FW. Which I think prompted people to believe the compression wasn't something that could be turned off.

Will the power of being a consumer. If you are not happy to be cheated by Sony like most think, just complain here and stop buying their products. End of story. For people who are behind Sony by saying that most of us won't use RAW? and their desicion is OK? Yes you are either working for Sony or you are getting paid or you are a teenage fanboy.. Stop putting out a fire will gas…. Morons.

yeah right, but Sony should just give the option to the user to use or not to use lossy compression. and the Q on hand is, can Sony fix this via firmware update and if they would do it, or if this is hard baked into the physical hardware

I have an A 77 II and take nature shots often using Continuous Shooting in RAW. I find that I have to be careful to expose correctly or I will have a problem with posterization. Often in the foliage in the background there are areas of shade. After processing there can be evident posterization in these areas. Reducing the size of the file for posting on the Web or challenges can really accentuate the posterization effect. Sometimes what I thought was a nice shot can become a deleted shot. Is this due to Sony's Raw compression?

I'm baffled by why Sony is putting so much effort into building great full-frame cameras yet is neglecting the issues created by lossy raw compression. It makes no sense to me. Then again, I've been shooting raw since I acquired my first raw-capable camera in 2005, and I've post-processed thousands of RX1 files in the nearly three years I've owned that camera -- and in all that time, I've never noticed artifacts from Sony's lossy compression. This is not to say they are not there, but, for my purposes, they've never "ruined" any of my images. Still, as a long-time dedicated hobbyist, I would prefer to at least have the option for lossless compression, so I can only assume that Sony's obtuse stubbornness is driving away at least some potential customers, especially some professionals. I just can't understand Sony's thinking on this issue.

'Overall, the effects of this compression aren't often visually significant. Their impact should mostly be understood as a reduction in processing latitude, since it tends only to be when you push and pull the Raw files that the missing data becomes visible.'

That's why I haven't seen compression artefacts, shooting Sony raw for nine years.

I don't think the issue is "lossy" vs. "non-lossy". I think the issue is more "crappy lossy compression" vs "decent lossy compression". If their compression were as well thought out as Nikon's, I don't think this would be nearly such a hot button issue.

I've had my photos published in books and magazines throughout the USA and shot for over 50 years (non professionally) and have no use for RAW. Too time consuming, very poor archiveability, and dubious results for the effort involved. Most people spend far too much time analyzing a picture from a technical point of view instead of an artistic one. Very few of the most famous pictures of the past would pass today's pixel peeping muster. Unless you shoot for very large prints, work in a studio, or have some other critical photographic work, you're probably wasting your time shooting raw... unless you just enjoy playing around.

There are several reasons to shoot raw files that have very close analogues in the business of push processing, printing or colour correction of film.

But then there are those reasons that are unique to digital: working around quirks of colour handling and vignetting etc.

I've just shot raw all through a very cool music festival in my home town. Including with a Sony NEX at very high ISO. So I've seen the effects mentioned in this article in a big way. I'm not hugely bothered because I remember what very high ISO film was like; you make accommodations. But it is good to see articles like this so we know exactly what accomodations to make. It'd be churlish of me to complain about the performance-at-extremes of a camera I got so cheaply, anyway, when it has so many other obvious strengths.

Shooting RAW is not only to get additional information out of the pictures you take.It gives you an additional freedom while shooting to be more focused on what you're shooting than how your camera is currently configured.

You can take care for stuff like WB, exposure fine tuning, contrast, noise reduction etc. afterwards when your camera has some time off. But taking JPEGs without concentrating on your camera configuration can really impact your pictures negatively.

So shooting RAW is no waste of time - I argue, it just shifts some time you need for taking (good?) pictures from the shooting to the post processing. I bet the overall time consumption is nearly the same. But maybe the results are not.

PLUS: If you want to have auto-processed pictures at the end of the day, you can achieve this when shooting RAW anyway but leave all options open if necessary.

Your opinion, just playing around? So you drop your negs to the lab and they do a terrible job with processing them? You ask them to reprint them and they say, sorry we lost the negs…..Welcome to the world of Jpeg shooting, throwing away the negatives in essence.

Sounds like you'd be right at home with most point and shoot camera's. That said, there are plenty of people out there(myself included) who enjoy the added benefits of shooting RAW and making use of the performance that comes from them.

Thanks for the mostly thoughtful replies. I knew this would raise controversy. When I shot film (seldom), my local lab would process the shots, or I shot slides which went to Kodak which did a great job. I've never lost my negatives (or positives) once. I've spent many hours experimenting with raw vs jpg in Photoshop, and again could not see significant enough differences (& yes I have 20-20 vision) to warrant the extra work. I simply shoot dark to preserve the highlights and then bring out the dark tones & never overwrite my jpg's. Having had 30 or so digital cameras which generate various raw files, I'm not about to deal with all those file formats. Now if the standard were to go to DNG things might be different.

Did you have all 36 printed? Did you have contact sheets printed and then go from there?

For negative film, there's film processing and then printing. There's the print the whole roll 1 hour place version, and there's the print this one in several subtle variations version. And many options in between.

Adobe DNG converter will allow you to batch process most raw files to the DNG format. It's free.

Hmm, then in my opinion you already live a RAW-like workflow based on JPEG. Underexposing (if necessary) and recovering the dark tones afterwards is a kind of post-processing and takes some time, same as RAW processing.

What is your benefit doing so? Saving time rather not. Adjusting exposure is besides adjusting WB the most time consuming part of RAW processing because you have to balance based on your memories to the scene and personal taste. All other stuff can usually be done automatically.(maybe you like to crop or add some effects afterwards, but this is again the same with JPEG).

The only thing I can see is that your system may be faster processing JPEGs. Editing RAW is sometimes a little slow depending on your system and camera's resolution. But if this isn't the case, I guess you spend more time in "producing" photos because you need more time during shooting but nearly the same in pp.

Sorry to sound condescending but if you have tried Raw in the past and can't find a benefit thats' worthwhile you haven't been shown it correctly. Exposing to the left is also a poor choice for final image quality. As an example: Go and watch Guy Gowans tutorials and you will learn a lot about how you can do things with raw that will transform your images.

I get Jorg's argument. For some applications, jpeg works really well. For example, Fuji's jpeg engine renders great skin tones right OOC that would otherwise take time to reproduce with another camera brand's raw. Sony's B&W filter produces jpegs OCC that are pretty close to what I like to get after tweaking a raw and using silvereffects.

Valen305, fair enough, but the great thing about raw is the choices can be made and the image transformed in post, and you own all that data to make creative choices over hours and experimentation rather than an instant at the point of capture.

Kryten61, I work with raw. I know it's virtues. But the great thing about shooting jpeg is that you can skip all of that post work once you've found the in-camera settings you like. you're not a better photographer just because you shoot and process raw. Some of the most successful photographers in history shot the analog equivalent of jpeg: transparency. There is no tweaking that slide after you've developed it, so you're forced to get it right in camera.

Fair enough Valen305, but digital is not tranny film, it is similar but also quite different, Jpeg engines usually always throw away data and bakes in effects, Tranny film records all that it can but is intolerant to any overexposure. That intolerance is it's similarity to Tranny film. (as I am sure you know already) I understand the convenience of Jpeg, But, I just will always disagree when someone tells me that Jpeg is 9/10 as good as raw because it is not. Quick and crusty yes? OK for some work ...Yes. But a big compromise to the real data that the CMOS captures...Also yes.

I am not spending that kind of money for a camera keeps me from a true raw image. I don't care whether I can see it or not. If I cared about that, I would still be shooting 16MPX images.

Don't make excuses like "you really can't see it" or, "it really doesn't matter." That is condescending. What kind of thinking would have you introduce a high end camera with all those bells and whistles, yet cripple the output?

Do you like your Porsche that can go 200mph, or your Range Rover that excels off road? Let me (or the government) decide how far to take the technology...

So you're speaking for dslr users after polling yo find that "most " actually shoot raw? You know there are 10s of millions of these owners that never post on an Internet forum because they don't have the time in their busy lives. That being the case you really think they have the time to develop each if their pics on a computer from raw?!

The real problem is mostly a marketing problem for Sony. The issue makes them look unresponsive to their customers and that isn't a good thing. So they should just do away with the compression and the issue would be gone.

The artifacts around the moon is the reason I am hoping Sony decides to do a firmware change to allow a lossless raw. In astrophotography, which is where I'd like to consider one of the A7 models, there are many objects that have high contrast edges that would generate the same conditions

It's already hard enough dealing with stacking and normalizing these super long exposure images, but to have a built-in camera issue makes the A7 series problematic.

It is now well known that some Sony cameras, including the new A7RII use a raw compression scheme that results in quasi 12 bit images being save, rather than 14 bit. Some chicken littles cry out that the sky is falling and that they would never buy a camera that does this."

As a Canon pro, I am a fan of Sony cameras. I was really gung ho about the A&Rii (I think I was just more frustrated with Canon). I just think there are some things that need to be addressed (for my needs)

1. The Raw issue (not as much of an issue for me since the improved DR outweighs any RAW issues I have seen so far in reviews)

2. weather sealing. A $3200 camera should have at least 5diii level sealing

3. Repair support. SONY pro does not have loaners and uses an unreliable 3rd party repair outfit. Plus you basically have to own the entire Sony range to be eligible for PRO support.

4. Battery life. Even if it is a redesigned, bulkier add on grip.

Again, these are shortcomings I could adapt, however, the 5Ds makes more sense for me at the end of the day. I may still get a an A7Rii for my street photography. However, I really like shooting street in camera B&W jpeg at 1:1 ratio. The RX100 has this ability..I just wish body was a smudge bigger. The A7rii does not have 1:1 option

It is very interesting to note that when viewing the DPR test chart under artificial light that it is the Sony A7rII that is running into problems with the chrome part of the paint brush (top left. Fanned out brush head) and the bright light reflecting off of it. Especially when viewing the Raw files. In fact even the Canon file retains more highlight detail.

out of interest how does one measure the "level of weather sealing"? For example watches uses meter for their water resistance measure. So how does one know if camera X is better or worst than camera Y in weather sealing.

I certainly agree with lenses that much is true, the recent Sigma article was a fascinating testament to the continuing importance of people in the design and manufacturing process - to my surprise.

As for camera bodies, I would tend to disagree. Camera bodies are now almost solid state - the silent mode in the A7R II IS solid state, no moving parts, its all electronics, even the view finder.

In this world then the trick is understanding circuitry, data, memory... the challenge is then matching this to end user requirements, something Sony haven't quite got right yet. So I'd argue that the experience that Sony lack and that is needed is a better understanding of camera users and their needs rather than any manufacturing tradition, after all, the circuitry can almost meet whatever spec is required. NOTE, that they've only got it wrong for a niche, unfortunately the niche that they are increasingly targeting.

'Not that you'd notice it?' Sony has innovated more than any other camera manufacturer in the last nine years, bar none. They've brought more than a hundred lenses to market and introduced full-time live-view in DSLRs, IBIS on FF and on-sensor phase detect amongst other things.

They also introduced a fully electronic lens mount and continued to support the investment of 'A' mount photographers with some of the best glass you can buy anywhere.

Even now you can't buy a single Nikon with IBIS, fifteen years (fifteen years!) after Konica-Minolta put it in the Dimage 7 and seven years after Sony put it in a FF body.

My comment regarding Sony seen as an electronics manufacturer more than a camera maker didn't mean to say they don't innovate; they do, a lot. Their cameras and the user interface of those cameras just don't feel very cameralike. For that you need evolutionary, not revolutionary, design.

The continuing criticism leveled at Sony for precisely that aspect made me wonder what it was of Konica/Minolta that they bought. Probably not the (son of the) designer of the SRT101 or the X-1/XK/XM. These things, the craft, the experience, the culture, need to be passed on from generation to generation.

As a Sony DSLR user since the beginning with the A100 I see Minolta 'DNA' everywhere in Sony products - it's one of the things I enjoy most about using their products. Perhaps not going back as far as you go to the SRT101 or the XM, but the A7rii feels as much a future paradigm camera as the A7000 was in 1985.

All cameras are going to look like the A7rii in a few years in the same way that all SLRs/DSLRs look like the Minolta A7000.

The examples [posted here are typical of the reasons we do not invest in the A7RII, now that, apparently, the lag problems of the A7R have been resolved.

I figured on buying into the system as soon as the dreadful shutter lag was eliminated, but as they cannot be bothered to let the user decide whether to compress a file or not, they have , obviously zero respect for the needs of those who have to use their equipment, and the excellent explanations here with the samples do tend to further that impression

It makes no sense to cripple the capabilities of expensive gear, and I certainly could not live with, or market poor results like those shown.

Erm, I think saying that they have.. 'obviously zero respect for the needs of those who have to use their equipment' is perhaps a little (or maybe a lot) exaggerated.

The impression this analysis gives is that while Sony have fixed many of the problems with the A7R and hence addressed the needs of 'those who have to use their equipment' (BTW - I don't think anyone HAS to use their equipment), if they are going to start asking more for their products and targeting professional users, RAW compression needs to be addressed.

@Jonath"(BTW - I don't think anyone HAS to use their equipment)"You might be one of those that buys cameras to have on the shelf but most people do use theirs and this is a pro grade camera that is most likely to be used by pros. And those people HAVE to use it or they don't eat.

...my point was more that people don't have to use Sony equipment, they are free to use whatever they wish. This is not a new issue and is well publicised and has always existed in the A7 series, so frankly if this issue is a show stopping issue for you and using this camera is part of your livelihood cos you just bought it, Caveat Emptor...

Sparky, while you might be right regarding many of other pro grade cameras I really don't see how weather sealing, battery life and dual slots are of ANY importance to somebody shooting in studio ?You know places where is does not rain, temperatures never go below freezing and where there is plenty of power and people mostly shoot tethered or they have memory card readers.

Der Step - Pro doesn't only mean studio. But I would think a "pro" would at bare minimum want the ability to have an instant backup of their work (wedding photogs) and a body a tad more rugged. But at the end of the day, a pro needs professional services to either repair his body quickly or sent out a replacement body. Sony just doesn't have that . Imagine you're on location shooting 1000 miles from home - Canon can overnight you a backup body. Would Sony?

BionzX is the reponsible for compression and picture quality so even if there is different circuitry used it still shows that it is possible and that this is Sonys choice. My guess is that 14bit would result in much slower burst rate hence the Sonys choice. For instance Nikon D7200 slows down when using 14bit. And this camera has much higher resolution then A99 so compression would pose much bigger chalenge for processor (BionzX) then it would be the case in A99.

Mmm, that's what I'm thinking. There must be a reason they chose to do this, especially if they didn't with the A99, maybe it kept the cost of the circuitry down with the Mk1 versions, reuse of existing chips, economies of scale, in effect scaling down the size of the RAW file so that it is similar to a 24MP uncompressed, I realise I'm indulging in pure speculation of course.

Oddly enough the A99 also suffers from compression issues. That said, is there a special technique to invoke 14bit RAW with the A99? I have a number of night scenes made with this camera that exhibit posterization in the haloes surrounding certain light sources.

The big question is, is this a hardware or software issue? Lots of speculation and nothing much from Sony except 'we're looking at it', but the fact is no one really knows even if the way they state their opinions suggests otherwise.

If its hardware then why would Sony say anything? It may hurt A7R II sales (although probably not by as much as you'd be lead to believe from reading these comments). Its quite possible that the whole camera design is predicated on a certain amount of data moving around at a certain speed, and that this is innate to the design, the implications of increasing it? Maybe Sony are testing how realistic this is right now? Maybe they'll release it as a firmware update, or maybe we'll have to wait for Mk III, more RAM and a faster 'Bionz'...

As an A7R owner its never really concerned me and I've only seen it once in 20 months, but £2.6k for a camera changes things.

BTW - is this an issue with all sony FF files? Does the A99 exhibit the same behaviour?

1. Sony will not add lossless raw in a firmware update. It has to be tested, plus all the conversion software has to adapt. Plus it may not be possible.Sony will need a feature that will help lure A&Rii buyers into an A7Riii down the road (along with other improvements).

2. Sony lives in a bubble (like many other big companies). Apple has avoided CD quality downloads even after audiophiles have yelled from the top of their lungs.

At the end of the day, audiophiles with Apple and the general buyers of the A&Rii complaining about lossy RAW are a small %. Even most pro review sites mention that the lossy RAW is probably not apparent 99.9% of the time.

3. If the A7Rii continues to sell well.............Sony may not even address in future updates.

There is no technical reason this issue should not be addressed in firmware, possibly with performance changes(either way).

Even if the image pipeline has a hardware raw compressor it can almost certainly be circumvented.

There is no technical reason why Sony can not test firmware and release it.

Working RAW is not a future feature that will lure future buers.It is a current bug that *may* discourage people in the market now. Sony may not fix it now, but saving the fix as a future feature is not the reason if they choose not too.

Maybe start by lobbying Canikon to start releasing genuinely different / interesting / exciting products that the photography press can talk about... DPR is not unique in giving this product lots of coverage, there is a lot to discuss after all.

Regarding compression, and the benefits of operational speed and file sizes, I think Sony have done a good job on the A7r2.

However, with a ‘simple firmware update’, I ‘d like to have the confidence-boosting choice to switch to uncompressed RAW, even at the expense of operational speed and large file sizes, for all my cityscapes at night and astro star trails, etc.

As a Sony A99 owner, I don't think they've done a good job at all actually. As problems presented themselves long before the A7R II and Sony chose to continue using the tech. in spite of the complaints by users.

And so what these types of issues do, is keep camera's like the A7R II in the amateur photographer bracket without hope of appealing to the upper end market.

@ Esstree, I agree with what you're saying too, though the compression, surely, is there mainly for speed... and smaller file sizes in the first place.

So the compression is a good thing good if the camera would otherwise be painfully slow, which it probably would be. Most results print very well and look superb at A3+, as far as I can see. That's not to say they couldn't be even better.

The A7r2 probably couldn't capture uncompressed RAW files without a noticeable drop in opertional speed. This wouldn't bother me too much, so I'd like to have the the option.

the difference between a normal compression algorithm and this one is around 15% - canon's CR2 averages around 1.15 bytes per pixel in file size, sony around 1 byte per pixel.it's not going to change the speed nor file size that significantly. unless they did something totally braindead and didn't compress at all.

Who does really care? This is an academic discussion, IMO. Professional photographers sell images not bunch of "14 uncompressed then post processed" buckets of bits. If you produce likeable or sellable images with your 14- or-maybe-12-compressed-raw files then you should be fine.

Which just shows no have no idea. If the problem is noticeable visible in your photo then it is not sellable. If you know there is a risk with the type of photography you do that this problem could show up, then you shoot with another brand of camera you can rely on.

Then: Would be interesting to know if this affects your real world photography? Do you use advanced exposure and post processing techniques to keep highlight detail for high dynamic scenes? Or do you use other strategies, like HDR?

From what was commented on the Dpreview article "Sony Alpha 7R II: Real-world ISO invariance study" most of the readers did not even understand the technique described, and the goal with such an exposure and post processing method. Still many found lossy raw compression troublesome.

For my photography I can live with cRAW. But then, my main interest is content and communication, not pixel peeping.

The majority of the A7RII enthusiasts seem to believe their camera is superior b/c its IQ is superior (resolution and DR).But now it appears to be not so perfect (lossy raw: artifacts and loss of DR). What next?The A7RII enthusiasts say in most cases, in real world photography, you don't see the artifacts. That may be true.Well, in most cases, in real world photography, you won't see the differences in resolution or DR compared to other systems either.So if you don't see the differences in IQ in most cases, other attributes become more important. Which are ... ?

I think most A7rII buyers knew about the Sony cRAW file compression from earlier Sony A series cameras. I don't agree with you that they look at their new camera as just superior - most people are not this naive or stupid. Neither do I think buyers of other brands are.

So to the question: Would cRAW artefacts affect your real world photography?

(Edit: I took a look at your gallery. From what I found, I don't think cRAW artefacts would affect your real world photography :-) )

@emfor - if A7RII owners are acting all high and mighty it is because they finally can after years of Canikon FF DSLR owners going on about how superior DLSRs are and cataloguing all of the shortcomings of A7s and mirrorless generally.

@jtan163 - There are so many posts like 'this is the end of canikon etc. b/c this new sony is sooo much better'. Well, as we can see here its not. May be its different and it has its pro, but there are also a lot of cons. Finally after the permanent hyping of the new sony its worth to list its shortcomings, too. Isn't it?

There have been hints (that everybody seems to ignore) that its simply build into the design of bionix chipset and datapaths. And that they are 'looking into' means they will try but most likely can't do it in the current setup. The good news is that there are less and less issues to complain about so i am sure its on sony's hitlist to resolve next but it might simply mean we have to wait until parts of their core platform gets a upgrade. People make 'firmware' sound like a magic tool but it can't make hardware and datapaths do things it can't do. Just my 2 cents.

Aren't most compression tasks done with dedicated hardware? It is far quicker than a software routine. It may not be possible to remove it from the data stream, or it may be very difficult without introducing other issues.

You need a beer and then all the shots look FANTASTIC. If I saw an issue, Sony would be gone long ago. Mind you so would Oly, Canon and Nikon. ;-) No doubt most in here wouldn't have a clue looking at the images.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.